Delhi District Court
Rajender Kumar And Anr vs Rajender Kumar And Ors on 5 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
DISTRICT JUDGE -01, NORTH WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. SHIVAJI ANAND
====================================================
UID No. / CNR No. DLNW01-006320-2021 MACT CASE No. 232/21 FIR No. 8/21, PS Nankhari, Himachal Pradesh In the matter of :
1. Late Sh. Naveen Kumar (deceased) Through his LRs:
1.1 Rajender Kumar (father) 1.2 Asha (mother) Both R/o Y-1/37, Budh Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi.
.....Petitioners vs.
1. Jaswant S/o Sh. Mukhtyar R/o VPO Rasiwas, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, Bhiwani, Haryana.
.... Owner/R1
2. Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chand R/o B-37, Hari Enclave, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi.
....Driver/R2
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its General Manager, Having its office at A-1, Kirti Place, Tagore Market, Opposite Metro, Pillar no.330, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
....Insurer/R3
Date of institution of the petition : 24.08.2021
Date of final Arguments : 02.08.2024
Date of Decision : 05.10.2024
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21)
Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 1 of 20 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:13:47 +0530 Appearance (s) : Sh. Manoj Rana, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. N. K. Sah, Ld. Counsel for R1.
Sh. V. K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for R3.
J U D G M E N T /AWAR D
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off petition filed by LRs of deceased with regard to death of Sh. Naveen Kumar ( in short, the deceased), who died in a road vehicular accident on 27.01.2021.
2. It is stated that the deceased alongwith his nine friends made a plan for Shimla Tour and accordingly, they arranged the vehicle. On 27.01.2021 at about 6:45 PM, at Sidhipur the deceased met with an accident within the jurisdiction of PS Nankhari, Himachal Pradesh and the deceased died on the spot as the respondent no.2 was driving very rashly in improper manner. Due to negligency of the respondent no.2, the said vehicle was fallen down in the deep trench/khali and the deceased was died on the spot. The registration number of the vehicle bearing no.HR-61C-0589 (in short, "the offending vehicle") which was driven by respondent no.1.
3. It is stated that the police official on the same day registered a FIR bearing no.8/2021 u/s 279/337/304A IPC, PS Nankhari District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in this regard.
4. It is stated that due to said accident which occurred due to sole negligence act of respondent no.2, hence, the deceased died on the spot.
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 2 of 20 SHIVAJI Digitally signed by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:13:54 +0530
5. It is stated that the said accident occurred due to sheer negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the said vehicle is insured with the respondent no.3 hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
6. It is stated that after the said accident, the deceased was taken to IGMC Hospital, Shimla where doctor declared him dead.
7. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and it is, inter-alia submitted that the answering respondent sold the vehicle as well as given his power of attorney till the RC is transferred in the name of Sh. Rinku which was duly signed in the presence of witnesses before the Notary Public on 08.09.2016. It is further submitted that the answering respondent who sold the vehicle in question to Sh. Rinku since August 2016, therefore, he was liable for and responsible for the vehicle in totality, therefore the answering respondent be delted from the array of parties.
8. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and, it is, interalia, submitted that had himself suffered grievance injury in the present matter, the respondent no. 1 admit the factum of accident but denies the allegation of rash and negligent driving at the end of respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the said accident in qusetion arose due to heavy snow fall sleeping the vehicle into the valley hence the respondent no.2 is also a suffered and entitled for compensation by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the respondent no.3 is liable to pay MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 3 of 20 Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.05 17:13:59 +0530 compensation to petitioners and respondent no.1 and 2.
9. Written statement has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and, it is, interalia, submitted that the seating capacity of the vehicle was 10 while 11 persons were travelling in the vehicle in gross violation of the seating capacity of the vehicle and provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act/rules. It is further submitted that the risk of the deceased was not covered and the answering respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
10. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 12.05.2022: -
1. Whether deceased Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 27.01.2021 at about 06:45 P.M., Nankhari, Himachal Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no.
HR-61C-0589 which was being driven by driver Sh. Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chand on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
11. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence. In order to prove its case, Rajender Kumar has been examined as PW1, who has deposed in terms of affidavit of evidence Ex. P-1 bears his signatures at point A and B and has relied on the MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 4 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:04 +0530
documents Ex.PW-1/1 and Ex.PW-1/2, copy of FIR Mark X, Copy of post mortem report Mark Y.
12. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he is not an eye witness of the accident and as such he cannot tell anything about the accident. He denied the suggestion that no such accident took place with the said vehicle or that the said vehicle has falsely implicated in the said case. He further deposed that the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle are not known to him and his family as per his knowledge. He further deposed that he does not know anything about the other persons travelling in the said offending vehicle at the time of accident. He further deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the said vehicle was taken on hire as on the date of accident. He denied the suggestion that he knows fully well that the said vehicle was taken on hire but he is deliberately and intentionally not admitted the said fact just to claim false compensation and to favour the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The date of birth of the deceased Naveen was 20.08.1994. He further deposed that he is working as the repairer of machines since last about 20 years and earning abour Rs.30,000/- per month, however he does not have any documentary proof regarding the same. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not employed or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of accident. He further denied the suggestion that the document Ex.PW-1/A is a false and procured document. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:14:10 +0530 MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 5 of 20
13. Sh. Pramod Kumar has been examined as PW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-2/1 which bears his signatures at point A and B.
14. In his cross examination done by Ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he is not summoned witness in the present case. Today, he has come to depose before the court on the asking of the petitioner. He does not know as to who had prepared his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW-2/1. He knows the contents of affidavit. He does not have any documents regarding the deceased. He has not brought any document today, to show that he is the partner in Arr Pee Engg Works or that any such firm exist. He does not have any document regarding the attendance, appointment, and payment of salary to the deceased. He further deposed that he does not have any document in the writing of the deceased during the said employment of the deceased. He does not have any details or documents regarding the qualification or experience of the deceased. He is assessed to income tax and his income is about Rs.4,80,000/- per annum. The salary of the deceased was not shown in ITR. He denied the suggestion that he is not partner in any such Arr Pee Engg. Works or was not employed or that he was not earning any amount as on the date of accident. He has not brought any ITR today. He further denied the suggestion that the petitioners are known to him or that he is deposing falsely to favour the petitioners. He further denied the suggestion that his affidavit is false or that he is deposing falsely.
15. No other petitioners witness was examined and thereafter, MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 6 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:16 +0530
matter was listed for recording of respondents evidence.
16. R-1W/1 Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtyar Singh, aged about 47 years, R/o Village and post office Rasiwas, district Charkhi- Dadri, Haryana has tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex R1W1/A which bears his signatures at point A and B. He also rely on the documents as under:-
(i) Copy of SPA dated 25.08.2016 (which was exhibit as R2W1/B in my affidavit is D-exhibited) is now Mark-A.
(ii) Copy of agreement dated 23.08.2016 (which was exhibit as R2W1/C in my affidavit is D-exhibited) is now Mark-B.
17. In his cross examination done by ld. Counsel for petitioner, he deposed that till date he has not informed the registration authority of the said vehicle or to any other body that he had sold the vehicle to Sh. Rinku. Further he deposed that he has not lodged any complaint to any authority against Mr. Rinku in his name. He has not sent any legal notice or letter to Sh. Rinku to ask him to get the vehicle transferred in his name.
18. In his cross examination done by ld. Counsel for R3, he deposed that he cannot tell anything as to how the vehicle was being plied or who were the passengers in the vehicle and in what capacity they were travelling or were the vehicle was being plied as on the date of the alleged accident as the vehicle was not in his control and possession. He voluntarily deposed that only Rinku can tell about the same as the vehicle was in his possession. He denied the suggestion MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 7 of 20 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:14:22 +0530 that his volunteered part is wrong. He deposed that he cannot admit or deny the suggestion that the vehicle was being plied on hire. He voluntarily deposed that the vehicle was not in his control. He denied the suggestion that he knows fully well that the vehicle was being plied on hire but he is not admitting the same deliberately. He denied the suggestion that there is gross violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act or that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further denied the suggestion that the documents filed by him on record are false and fabricated.
19. R-4W/1 Smt. Anju Verma, C/o United India Insurance Company Ltd, aged about 53 years, R/o-02, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi has tendered her evidenceby way of an affidavit Ex R4W1/A which bears her signatures at point A and B. She also rely on documents as under:-
(i) Office copy of the notice under order 12 rule 8 of CPC, 1903 is exhibited as EX-R4W1/1
(ii) Registered postal receipts in respect of the said notice are exhibited R4W1/2, R4W1/3, R4W1/4, and R4W1/5
(iii) Certified true copy of the insurance policy as exhibited as R4W1/6 (Colly) running into 3 sheets
(iv) Her authority letter is exhibited as R4W1/7
20. In her cross examination, she deposed that she has got the driving license of the driver investigated in the present case. She has not brought the same and the report is still awaited. She further MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 8 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:27 +0530
deposed that the insurance company was always in the possession of Office copy of Ex-R4W1/6. She denied the suggestion that the insurance company frivolously and wrongfully sent the notice Ex- R4W1/1 even when it has the office copy of the insurance policy. She further deposed that in case of renewal of insurance, they do not get the vehicle physically verified. She denied the suggestion that the vehicle was 12-16-seater vehicle. She further denied the suggestion that she has wrongfully seated the seating capacity of the vehicle in her evidence affidavit. She deposed that she does not know whether insurance company has any document or investigation report to show that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. She denied the suggestion that she is not duly authorize to depose before this Hon'ble Court. She further denied the suggestion that Jaswant Singh has not made any willful violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. She has not brought the document to show that Page no. 3 and 4 of Ex-R4W1/6 containing terms and condition of insurance policy were handed over to the insured i.e., Sh. Jaswant Singh. She further deposed that it must be there in the records of concerned branch and terms and conditions are the connected parts of the same policy. She denied the suggestion that the terms and conditions of the said policy were not supplied to Jaswant Singh. No other respondents evidence was led. Thus, respondents evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
21. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the testimony of witnesses including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under:-
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 9 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:32 +0530
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether deceased Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar expired due to injuries suffered in road traffic accident on 27.01.2021 at about 06:45 P.M., Nankhari, Himachal Pradesh due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing no.
HR-61C-0589 which was being driven by driver Sh. Rajender Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chand on the said date, time and place? OPP.
22. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
23. Petitioners have examined PW-1 to prove the rash and MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 10 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:38 +0530
negligent driving of respondent no. 1. PW-1, in his cross-examination has admitted that he is not eye-witness of the accident.
24. The testimony of PW-1 against the respondent no.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence that respondent no.1 was present at the spot and driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the case does not warrant any other best evidence. Keeping in view the facts & evidence produced by the petitioner, it has proved on record that the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent no.1, as a result of which, the deceased lost his life.
25. The FIR has been lodged against the respondent no.1 and he has faced criminal charges of causing death and injuries by rash and negligent driving in the said accident. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, which is clearly visible and as MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 11 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:43 +0530
such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
27. As this Tribunal has already held that R1 was responsible for the death of the deceased due to his neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners have become entitled to be compensated for death of deceased in the above accident, but computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
COMPENSATION
28. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. In this regard, though not quoted, reliance is placed upon, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121.
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 12 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.05
17:14:48
+0530
29. As already stated above, the claimant/petitioner no.1 namely Rajender Kumar is the father of deceased and claimant/petitioner no.2 namely Asha is the mother of deceased. As per copy of aadhar card of deceased, the year of birth of deceased was 1994, thus, the deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of the accident. PW-1 deposed in his evidence affidavit that the deceased was working as Supervisor at Arr Pee Engg. Works and earning Rs.28,500/- per month. However, one witness namely Sh. Pramod Kumar has been examined by the petitioners to prove the the factum of salary of the deceased. But neither he has brought any documents regarding the attendance, appointment, payment of salary of deceased nor he has brought any document which shows that he was working as Supervisor at Arr Pee Engg. Works. As Ex.PW-1/2 shows that the salary of deceased was Rs.28,500/- per month and same was not objected by any respondents. Thus, the salary of deceased is taken as Rs.28,500/- per month.
30. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family and all the petitioners/claimants were dependent upon him for their livelihood. The ld. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that future prospects should also be awarded to the petitioners as per law.
31. Accordingly, on the basis of aforementioned documents, age of the deceased is taken as 27 years as on the date of accident.
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 13 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:14:54 +0530
Hence, the multiplier of "17" would be applicable in view of pronouncement made in case titled as Sarla Verma (supra).
32. Considering the fact that deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and was not having a permanent job at that time of the said accident, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded in favour of petitioners in view of recent pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as in view of recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, in MAC APP No. 798/2011.
33. The deceased was unmarried and there are 2 claimants/ dependants upon him (i.e. petitioner no.1/father and petitioner no.2/mother). Petitioner no.1 is the father of deceased and he is not the dependant of deceased. Thus, there are 1 dependant and there has to be deduction of "one half (1/2)", as per the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra). Thus, total loss of dependency would come out as under:
S Head Amount Remarks
No (Rs.)
1. Monthly Income of deceased 28,500
(A)
2. Add: Future prospects @ 40% 11,400 40% of (A)
(B)
3. Less: Personal expenses of 19,950 [(A)+ (B)] /2=
deceased @ one half (1/2) (C)
(C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency(D) 19,950 [(A)+(B)]-(C)=
(D)
5. Annual Loss of dependency (E) 2,39,400 (D) x 12 = (E)
MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21)
Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 14 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:15:00 +0530
6. Multiplier @ 17
7. Total Loss of dependency (F) 40,69,800 (E) x
17(multiplier) =
(F)
Total 40,69,800
LOSS OF LOVE & AFFECTION
34. After the judgment passed in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) and recent judgment titled as New India Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 3093 of 2020 the petitioners are not entitled to be compensated under this head. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in appeal titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pooja & Ors, (supra) has been pleased to observe in para 18 of the judgment that the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) does not recognize any other non-pecuniary head of damages. Hence, no amount of compensation is being awarded under this head. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
35. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors.", Civil Appeal dated 07.08.2024, I am of the considered opinion that both mother and father of deceased are entitled for payment of Rs.96,800/- towards loss of consortium. Consequently, a sum of Rs.96,800/- (Rs.48,400/- x 2) is awarded to the petitioners under this head.
LOSS OF ESTATE & FUNERAL EXPENSES
36. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Rojalini Nayak & Ors. Vs. Ajit Sahoo & Ors. ", Civil Appeal dated MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 15 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
Date:
ANAND 2024.10.05
17:15:06
+0530
07.08.2024 mentioned supra, a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners on account of loss of estate and and a sum of Rs. 18,150/- is awarded in favour of petitioners towards funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:
S. No. Head Amount (Rs.)
1 Loss of dependency 40,69,800
2 Loss of Consortium 96,800
(Rs.48,400/- x 2)
3 Loss of Estate &Funeral 36,300
Expenses (Rs.18,150/- each)
T O TAL 42,02,900
37. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2 has submitted that, though the offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case, however, the offending vehicle has been duly insured with respondent no.3, therefore, respondent no.3/Insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company has submitted that the seating capacity in the offending vehicle was 11 but 10 persons were siting in the offending vehicle at the time of accident which is gross violation of traffic rules and regulation and terms and conditions of insurance policy as such risk of the deceased was not covered. Further, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not holding driving license for the hilly area. Thus, there is a willful violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act/Rules. Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:15:12 +0530 MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 16 of 20
38. I have gone through the rival contention of ld. Counsel for the parties. From the pleadings on record, it cannot be stated that any defence has been raised by ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 which creates a shadow of cloud over the claim of the petitioners. Neither any evidence led that during the accident there were total 11 persons travelling in the offending vehicle. Further, the respondents were not able to correlate the accident with the facts of negligence resulting in accident. Thus, this point of argue of insurance company is rejected. Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the same, respondent No.3/Insurance company is held liable to pay compensation/Award amount to the claimants/ petitioners. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3: RELIEF
39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I award compensation of Rs.42,02,900/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Two Thousand Nine Hundred Only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 24.08.2021 till the date of its realization in favour of petitioners.
APPORTIONMENT
40. The statement of petitioner No.1/ Sh. Rajender Kumar Father of the deceased in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 19.07.2024 and petitioner no.2 namely Asha Devi in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 02.08.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that out of MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 17 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:15:19 +0530
total compensation amount, the amount is disbursed as follows :
(a) Petitioner No.1/Sh. Rajender Kumar (father of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.2,02,900- (Rupees Two Lacs Two Thousand Nine Hundred Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
(b) Petitioner No.2/Smt. Asha Devi (mother of deceased) shall be entitled to share amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Only) alongwith proportionate interest;
41. The entire share amoung alongwith interest, if any of petitioner no.1 be released to him in his MACT Saving Bank Account no.42932193727, IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, District Courts Rohini, Delhi .
42. Out of share amount of petitioner No.2/Smt. Asha Devi, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) shall be immediately released to her in her MACT Saving Bank Account No. 43185924919 IFSC Code: SBIN0010323 in State Bank of India, District Courts Rohini, Delhi and the remaining amount alongwith interest amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
43. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 18 of 20 Digitally signed SHIVAJI by SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date: 2024.10.05 17:15:24 +0530 custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank alongwith the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause(g) above.
(i) The petitioner is directed to open a Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit Account (MACAD) in terms of order dated 07.12.2018 of Hon'ble Justice J.R. Midha in case titled as Rajesh Tyagi and Others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Others F.A.O No. 842/03 as per clause 31 of MCTAP and form VIII titled as Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme as directed in the said order.
(j) Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court branch is further directed to disburse the FD amount in Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme account as directed by Hon'ble Delhi MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 19 of 20
Digitally signed
by SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI ANAND
ANAND Date:
2024.10.05
17:15:29 +0530
High Court vide order dated 07.12.18, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
44. Respondent no.3/Insurance Co. ltd. is hereby directed to deposit the Award amount in SBI, Rohini Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, SBI, Rohini Court Branch is directed to transfer the respective share amounts immediately to aforesaid petitioner in his aforesaid saving bank accounts, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The parties are directed to download the digitally signed copy of judgment online.
45. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
46. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 05.11.2024.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024. Digitally signed by SHIVAJI SHIVAJI ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.10.05 17:15:33 +0530 (SH. SHIVAJI ANAND) DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI MACT Case No. 232/21 (FIR no. 8/21) Rajender Kumar & Anr. Vs. Rajender Kumar & Ors.
Page no. 20 of 20